Wow, I’m dumbfounded by this logic.
Let’s say you and I live next door to each other. One day, my family and I break into your house and move in. You tell us to leave, but we punch you in the face. You try fighting back, but we don’t leave, and days and weeks go by. I’ve moved some of my furniture into your house. How would you feel if people started saying that the problem is now too complex. I’ve obviously invested too much in living in your house for me to just pack up and go home. The solution is going to have to be more nuanced than that.
This seems to be the logic you’re defending.
nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 7 months ago
That’s literally no one’s problem but Putin’s. He has committed crimes. He should accept the personal reprecussions. You’re basically making the “affluenza” argument for someone who has been committing war crimes and murdering civilians because they dared to want to have a representative government.
Perspectivist@feddit.uk 7 months ago
I’m not defending Putin’s actions - I’m assessing the realistic options given the current situation. There’s a difference between what should happen in a moral sense and what is actually likely to happen in the real world.
Saying “he should accept the consequences” is easy - but how exactly do you propose making that happen? Wishing for an outcome is not the same as having a way to it. If you think there’s a viable way to get Putin to take personal responsibility or withdraw and survive it personally, I’m genuinely interested in hearing what you think that looks like in practice.